logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원경주지원 2020.10.27 2020가단11684
사해행위취소
Text

1. It was concluded on May 13, 2019 between the Defendant and C as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On May 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Ulsan District Court 2017Da5512 against C to seek unjust enrichment, and sentenced that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 130 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from March 1, 2014 to March 16, 2017, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment was dismissed on July 18, 2019 by the Plaintiff and C’s respective appeals (Ulsan District Court 2018Na23230), and C’s appeal was dismissed on November 14, 2019 (No. 2019Da258170).

C On May 13, 2019, with the Defendant, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and Ulsan-gu D apartment E, Ulsan-gu. On the same day, the F Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with the Defendant on the establishment of a mortgage (the part concerning the instant real estate) between the Defendant and the obligor, the obligor, and the mortgagee as the Defendant as to each of the instant land during the racing-si. On May 16, 2019, the establishment of a mortgage (the part concerning the instant real estate) was completed on each of the following dates (the “registration of this case”).

The details of active property C at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract are as shown in the attached Table 2 list, and the details of small property are as shown in the attached Table 3 list.

[Based on the basis of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number if there is a serial number), and the fact-finding conducted on the Court Administration Office of this Court, as a result of the fact-finding conducted by the plaintiff C on the whole purport of the argument, which is a fraudulent act against the general creditor.

Therefore, the mortgage contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall implement C the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of this case with the performance of duty to restore to the original state.

arrow